The dictionary says otherwise.
No actually, your quite totally wrong. Atheism isn't a beleive...
Actually it is. It's basic logic: a nonbelief is a belief.
I do not believe X = I believe ~X.Qualifier: I am not trying to be snarky.
But, did you actually read the rest of my post, or just pick up on that bit? If not, I made it pretty clear why it isn't actually a beleive, or a faith.
That's right, it's not even a beleive. Because an athiest doesn't consider religion, and the question of the existance thereof, any more valid than the question will I fly to work this morning with my super powers? Or should I purchase some spray for the magical elves in my teapot?
Now, I'm not actively trying to ridicule religion, who can beleive whatever the hell you want, put beleive requires an absence of proof. There is no absence of proof for the non-existance of the divine, because it is not a concept which is provable, thusly is not 'beleif', and by the shoddy logic which is casual inference, (the backbone of the athiesm is a faith argument), if not a beleif, not a faith, then not a religion.
be·lief NOUN:
1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. [/b]Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something:[/b] His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
By the second definition, atheism is most certainly a belief.
By the way, belief is not the same as religion.
|
I guess not. :(The whole point is (of course) that many would take exception to what constitues "their money" to begin with. Can we agree that everyone understands the basic position of each side without having to keep reiterating it?<cough>and because it can be a taxable deduction</cough>Funny thing, it still doesn't explain why the cold hearted bastards are more generous with their money than the soft hearted, caring people. Maybe some people just find it harder to share their own money then they do other peoples.My Money: What I have earned or inherited.
Not your money: see above.
That's the basic understanding of my side.
The basic understanding of the other side seems to be:
No one owns anything, it is all really owned by the government and they just let you keep some of it because they're nice.
No actually, your quite totally wrong. Atheism isn't a beleive...
Actually it is. It's basic logic: a nonbelief is a belief.
I do not believe X = I believe ~X.I do not believe in X = I believe not in X?
Syntax error. Does not compute.
ok, we're having fundamental language problems here.
Per Dictionary.com: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
If you deny the existance of a supreme being or beings, you believe there's no such thing.
The same as not believing there's a Santa.
Split peas are better than nothing. Nothing is better than ice cream. Therefore, split peas are better than ice cream.
No actually, your quite totally wrong. Atheism isn't a beleive...
Actually it is. It's basic logic: a nonbelief is a belief.
I do not believe X = I believe ~X.I do not believe in X = I believe not in X?
Syntax error. Does not compute.
For example,
I do not believe that there are fairies = I believe that there are not fairies.EDIT: Sorry, missed Matthew's post.
|
I see no reason to not use local monies to put up a small and tasteful Christmas displays. Just as I see no reason not to give the day off to most employees for spending time with their families.Because it is still using government money to fund religious speech? Seriously, I'm not seeing any ambiguity here. Help me out?
Well for one the first amendment says what the federal Government should and should not do. Not the state. It is only very recently that the courts have started going beyond the power that is invested in them and declaring what a state can or cannot do.
[referring to Nativity displays]I see no reason to not use local monies to put up a small and tasteful Christmas displays. Just as I see no reason not to give the day off to most employees for spending time with their families .Would you have a problem if they used it to establish similar displays for Eid? Or the Solstices? Or any other religious festival for any religion (including Satanism)? That's the problem. Very few people have a problem with the government doing 'small, tasteful displays ' for their religion (although small and tasteful can vary widely in their meaning), but do you feel the same way about the government spending your money to commemorate other religions?
Once again for tradition which has gone on since before our countries founding. Though the puritans would have been upset with it all in the first place.
Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1868, the Supreme Court generally held that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments. Subsequently, under the Incorporation doctrine the Bill of Rights have been broadly applied to limit state and local government as well. For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), the majority of the court joined Justice David Souter's opinion, which stated that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."
No actually, your quite totally wrong. Atheism isn't a beleive...
Actually it is. It's basic logic: a nonbelief is a belief.
I do not believe X = I believe ~X.I do not believe in X = I believe not in X?
Syntax error. Does not compute.
ok, we're having fundamental language problems here.
Per Dictionary.com: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
If you deny the existance of a supreme being or beings, you believe there's no such thing.
The same as not believing there's a Santa.
Split peas are better than nothing. Nothing is better than ice cream. Therefore, split peas are better than ice cream.
Bugley, I think you're taking Matthew's different examples and misunderstanding him to be placing them in a single syllogism.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
Note the mental qualifier. If it is mental, it is a thought, without evidence or proof.
Athiesm isn't believing that your god, or gods, or ancestors, or any metaphysical quality can affect the world.
It's totally different. You seem to be assuming athiesm is the opposite of religion, i.e. beleiving that metephysics cannot affect the world.
That is not athiesm, you argument is true, but does not apply to athiesm.
Athiesm is seeing only physics and nature, there is no metaphysics, because anything that can be proven is actually natural, not supernatural.
Thus not a beleif in anything, the key error seems to be that athiesm is the disbeleif in the divine. This is not the case.
Fair enough, but at the same time I was simply rebutting claims that conservatives are hypocrites for following the teachings of Christ because they do not care about helping the poor. That is demonstrably false, and I pointed that out. The second claim was that all conservatives who donate to charity did so for selfish reasons, whic can not be demonstrated as true by the poster, so I pointed that out as well and that even if there was such selfishness involved, it still doesn't explain the dichotomy between those who supposedly don't care about the poor but donate a lot to charities to help them and those who supposedly do care about the poor but don't donate as much of their own money to help the poor. It may be more of us vs. them, but us didn't start it, we just stood up for our selves.
If I'm the 'poster' in question, I would never use the word 'all' and I did not specifically state conservatives being the hypocrites. I don't discriminate on my cynicism; I'd direct them toward the liberals, too. Regardless of religion or politicial stance, I just feel that there is a lot of those who don't do it with complete and utter sincerity. There's always a reason, even if it's a psychological one to settle one's own conscience by fulfilling such obligations of charity - whether physical or material.
That's the basic understanding of my side.The basic understanding of the other side seems to be:
No one owns anything, it is all really owned by the government and they just let you keep some of it because they're nice.
Then you've fundamentally failed in the first test of open-mindedness: Do you understand the position of the other side? I understand your position. I can clearly articulate it. The converse appears untrue.
My position (not that I claim to speak for all liberals) is that the output of our economy isn't distributed in accordance with responsibility for the creation of value. Further, history teaches that those who benefit from this disparity are loathe to correct it, hence the need for a progressive tax scheme. It has nothing to do with government ownership of anything, and everything to do with promoting equality of opportunity; ensuring that each is rewarded in accordance with one's own effort and ability, rather than in accordance with the size of your inheritance or one's willingness to take advantage of others.
I'm sure we can (and would) argue about the specifics and practical concerns, but I suspect we agree on what constitutes fairness. In any event, I truly don't see the point of repeatedly building liberal (or conservative) straw men.
|
|
SO that we all know where we are all coming from how about some basic courses on the subject. Academic Earth Philosophy
Let's go to the dictionary again.2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.Note the mental qualifier. If it is mental, it is a thought, without evidence or proof.
Athiesm isn't believing that your god, or gods, or ancestors, or any metaphysical quality can affect the world.
It's totally different. You seem to be assuming athiesm is the opposite of religion, i.e. beleiving that metephysics cannot affect the world.
That is not athiesm, you argument is true, but does not apply to athiesm.
Athiesm is seeing only physics and nature, there is no metaphysics, because anything that can be proven is actually natural, not supernatural.
Thus not a beleif in anything, the key error seems to be that athiesm is the disbeleif in the divine. This is not the case.
a·the·ism NOUN:
1.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.
So you are trying to tell me that disbelief in the existence of one or more gods does not equate to the belief that such does not exist? Because my English teacher would disagree.
ok, we're having fundamental language problems here.
Per Dictionary.com: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
If you deny the existance of a supreme being or beings, you believe there's no such thing.
The same as not believing there's a Santa.
Believing there is no such thing and not believing there is such a thing are two different syntaxes.
Let's go to the dictionary again.2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.Note the mental qualifier. If it is mental, it is a thought, without evidence or proof.
Athiesm isn't believing that your god, or gods, or ancestors, or any metaphysical quality can affect the world.
It's totally different. You seem to be assuming athiesm is the opposite of religion, i.e. beleiving that metephysics cannot affect the world.
That is not athiesm, you argument is true, but does not apply to athiesm.
Athiesm is seeing only physics and nature, there is no metaphysics, because anything that can be proven is actually natural, not supernatural.
Thus not a beleif in anything, the key error seems to be that athiesm is the disbeleif in the divine. This is not the case.
a·the·ism NOUN:
1.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.So you are trying to tell me that disbelief in the existence of one or more gods does not equate to the belief that such does not exist? Because my English teacher would disagree.
Furthermore, since you cannot prove using science that God doesn't exist, doesn't the disbelief in such a being qualify as a mental acceptence of the idea?
Believing there is no such thing and not believing there is such a thing are two different syntaxes.ok, we're having fundamental language problems here.
Per Dictionary.com: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
If you deny the existance of a supreme being or beings, you believe there's no such thing.
The same as not believing there's a Santa.
Please explain how they are different in anything other than a semantic manner?
Bugley, I think you're taking Matthew's different examples and misunderstanding him to be placing them in a single syllogism.
And I think you're missing that he's doing exactly that. :)
Edit: Will elaborate momentarily. :)
|
|
Let's go to the dictionary again.2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.Note the mental qualifier. If it is mental, it is a thought, without evidence or proof.
Athiesm isn't believing that your god, or gods, or ancestors, or any metaphysical quality can affect the world.
It's totally different. You seem to be assuming athiesm is the opposite of religion, i.e. beleiving that metephysics cannot affect the world.
That is not athiesm, you argument is true, but does not apply to athiesm.
Athiesm is seeing only physics and nature, there is no metaphysics, because anything that can be proven is actually natural, not supernatural.
Thus not a beleif in anything, the key error seems to be that athiesm is the disbeleif in the divine. This is not the case.
a·the·ism NOUN:
1.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.So you are trying to tell me that disbelief in the existence of one or more gods does not equate to the belief that such does not exist? Because my English teacher would disagree.
Lets see you forgot 1.
dictionary.comAtheism:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
Supposed mental qualifiers have nothing to do with it. Whether a belief is written, vocalized, or merely assented to in the mind, it is a belief that is caused by something. Generally, what is taken for evidence it thought to be an important part of the causal process of belief formation. You're attempting to redefine atheism to mean something like natural science or the physical sciences, and there's a reason we have different words for these, VP. Atheism means a disbelief in the divine or a belief that there is no divine. You could be an atheist and not believe in material existence at all, much less the physical sciences as a means to true beliefs.
|
|
Furthermore, since you cannot prove using science that God doesn't exist, doesn't the disbelief in such a being qualify as a mental acceptence of the idea?Let's go to the dictionary again.2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.Note the mental qualifier. If it is mental, it is a thought, without evidence or proof.
Athiesm isn't believing that your god, or gods, or ancestors, or any metaphysical quality can affect the world.
It's totally different. You seem to be assuming athiesm is the opposite of religion, i.e. beleiving that metephysics cannot affect the world.
That is not athiesm, you argument is true, but does not apply to athiesm.
Athiesm is seeing only physics and nature, there is no metaphysics, because anything that can be proven is actually natural, not supernatural.
Thus not a beleif in anything, the key error seems to be that athiesm is the disbeleif in the divine. This is not the case.
a·the·ism NOUN:
1.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.So you are trying to tell me that disbelief in the existence of one or more gods does not equate to the belief that such does not exist? Because my English teacher would disagree.
So, presuming you are a Christian, you're saying you're an anislamist? You have an active belief that islam is wrong, correct? Or an azeusist? An athorist? An afairyist? etc etc.
Atheists are prickly on this issue because from long experience when people try to classify atheism as a belief or having any component of faith, they tend to immediately make the leap to atheism=a religion just the same as any other religion, which it isn't. Basically, this has been used as a trap argument so many times that its denial has become ingrained.
dictonary.com's entry was likely not defined by an atheist. :P
|
|
]Furthermore, since you cannot prove using science that God doesn't exist, doesn't the disbelief in such a being qualify as a mental acceptence of the idea?
For step number I would suggest that you take a look at St. Thomas Aquinas Who did in fact view religion as a part of the sciences and used logic and methodology to back up his claims. While some of his examples no longer work the basics of his methods and views still hold up.
|
|
Furthermore, since you cannot prove using science that God doesn't exist, doesn't the disbelief in such a being qualify as a mental acceptence of the idea?
See Russell's teapot.
So, presuming you are a Christian, you're saying you're an anislamist? You have an active belief that islam is wrong, correct? Or an azeusist? An athorist? An afairyist? etc etc.
Atheists are prickly on this issue because from long experience when people try to classify atheism as a belief or having any component of faith, they tend to immediately make the leap to atheism=a religion just the same as any other religion, which it isn't. Basically, this has been used as a trap...
Actually I define myself as a Nordic pantheist. Where Catholics wear a cross necklace, I wear one that has Thor's hammer on it. Beyond that though, my big objection is the idea the some how belief and religion are the same and therefore atheism is somehow beyond the realm of belief. It comes across to me as if they consider themselves somehow morally superior to the rest of us because we just have belief and they have something else.
]Furthermore, since you cannot prove using science that God doesn't exist, doesn't the disbelief in such a being qualify as a mental acceptence of the idea?For step number I would suggest that you take a look at St. Thomas Aquinas Who did in fact view religion as a part of the sciences and used logic and methodology to back up his claims. While some of his examples no longer work the basics of his methods and views still hold up.
You're talking about his ontological argument based on a priori proofs? Kant, Russell, and Hume has already refuted it based on Aquinas committing an assertion fallacy because he provides no supprotive premises other than the context inherent to said statement. It's a circular argument.
Furthermore, since you cannot prove using science that God doesn't exist, doesn't the disbelief in such a being qualify as a mental acceptence of the idea?See Russell's teapot.
Familiar with Russell's teapot, but I'm not sure how it applies here. I'm not demanding anything involving the burden of proof. I am simply saying that there is a certain degree of, well faith for lack of a better word, in atheism because of the lack of proof either way.
|
|
Actually I define myself as a Nordic pantheist. Where Catholics wear a cross necklace, I wear one that has Thor's hammer on it. Beyond that though, my big objection is the idea the some how belief and religion are the same and therefore atheism is somehow beyond the realm of belief. It comes across to me as if they consider themselves somehow morally superior to the rest of us because we just have belief and they have something else.
So, presuming you are a Christian, you're saying you're an anislamist? You have an active belief that islam is wrong, correct? Or an azeusist? An athorist? An afairyist? etc etc.
Atheists are prickly on this issue because from long experience when people try to classify atheism as a belief or having any component of faith, they tend to immediately make the leap to atheism=a religion just the same as any other religion, which it isn't. Basically, this has been used as a trap...
Ok. So definitely not an athorist, then.
As I said, it's a defensive reaction caused by too many people conflating belief and a belief, i.e. a religion.
Finally, some atheists are smug about it. No question. But they're outweighed tens or hundreds to one by theists who are smug about their inherent superiority for believing the one true faith.
|
|
dictonary.com's entry was likely not defined by an atheist. :P
yeah probably not.
It does go back to the old argument though that if you don't actually believe in something then why should you act moral in the first place. having known a few atheists who choose to have morals and a few that do not, the general statement is that following laws and doing the right thing is in their best interest. Yet others, I have met, care only for their best interest not necessarily in the best interest of their fellow man. These people, once again ones I have met personally, also tend to use past issues like the crusades, as issues showing that they feel religion and all religion is very selfish in it motives as well. Not seeming to be able to separate the teachings from an individual who twists it for their own ends. One in particular thought that men in general were dumb and that religions only reason for existence was to give dumb people some foundation with which to focus themselves. He was very confused when he found out that the smartest people working for him were not only all religious but were all Catholic.
There's a whole other problem here around the issue of proof/faith. These are taken to be incompatible, and they are not. Examples of faith:
An external world exists.
The external world is stable.
My observation of the external world may be accurate.
These are not capable of non-circular proofs. Proofs depend upon prior faith.
|
|
Familiar with Russell's teapot, but I'm not sure how it applies here. I'm not demanding anything involving the burden of proof. I am simply saying that there is a certain degree of, well faith for lack of a better word, in atheism because of the lack of proof either way.Furthermore, since you cannot prove using science that God doesn't exist, doesn't the disbelief in such a being qualify as a mental acceptence of the idea?See Russell's teapot.
The problem is that faith is a very loaded word in these discussions. I agree there isn't really a better one, but if you've been beaten over the head enough times, you start to get a bit defensive, as Houstonderek pointed out on another topic in this thread.
Well it's been fun. I have to get across campus to my class on the political psychology now. Have fun you guys.
|
|
No, I understand the other side quite well. I also understand that the other side has little desire for "fairness" or "equality" (based on that history you enjoy invoking) and simply wishes to retain power by removing personal responsibility form anyone's life situation, and instead generates an unreasonable hatred of the successful in order to gain the political power to punish those who dare to try and achieve above and beyond what others are either capable or willing to achieve.
The reality is this: The universe doesn't give two s!+$s about you. I don't give two s@+%s about anyone outside of my life. I have my own life, my own problems and my own family to concern myself with. If you, through the initiation of force, and the threat of imprisonment (because those are the only means available to achieve your goals, frankly) take away from me involuntarily, then you are a thief. Period.
It is not the government's money. If someone earned their money, it is theirs. If someone gained money through fraudulent means, then there are laws in place to protect people from that. If they earned it honestly, it should be up to them how much they are willing to give to help the less fortunate, not some bureaucrat who has no insentive to use the money wisely or efficiently.
We have, since the New Deal, spent enough on "the war on poverty" to give every freaking poor person in America Millions of dollars EACH. Poverty still exists. Your way doesn't work. Come up with a better system or zip it.
|
|
You're talking about his ontological argument based on a priori proofs? Kant, Russell, and Hume has already refuted it based on Aquinas committing an assertion fallacy because he provides no supprotive premises other than the context inherent to said statement. It's a circular argument.]Furthermore, since you cannot prove using science that God doesn't exist, doesn't the disbelief in such a being qualify as a mental acceptence of the idea?For step number I would suggest that you take a look at St. Thomas Aquinas Who did in fact view religion as a part of the sciences and used logic and methodology to back up his claims. While some of his examples no longer work the basics of his methods and views still hold up.
We could go on about this for hours. Let me just say that I fond Kant specifically as well as Russell and Hume's arguments slightly flawed. I also think that Aquanis' has a lot to say not just that one singular facets that is repeatedly attacked.
Finally, some atheists are smug about it. No question. But they're outweighed tens or hundreds to one by theists who are smug about their inherent superiority for believing the one true faith.
Isn't this a simple product of there being more theists than atheists?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Actually I define myself as a Nordic pantheist. Where Catholics wear a cross necklace, I wear one that has Thor's hammer on it. Beyond that though, my big objection is the idea the some how belief and religion are the same and therefore atheism is somehow beyond the realm of belief. It comes across to me as if they consider themselves somehow morally superior to the rest of us because we just have belief and they have something else.
So, presuming you are a Christian, you're saying you're an anislamist? You have an active belief that islam is wrong, correct? Or an azeusist? An athorist? An afairyist? etc etc.
Atheists are prickly on this issue because from long experience when people try to classify atheism as a belief or having any component of faith, they tend to immediately make the leap to atheism=a religion just the same as any other religion, which it isn't. Basically, this has been used as a trap...
Off topic:
Me: "Would you feel better if I got him some comics of your mythology*? I think I've some issues of Avengers around here..."
Later:
Her: I'm proud enough of my ancestor's faith that I have my god's name in my last name. (Odenkirk)
Me: Your ancestors worshiped Jim Kirk? Wow, I knew the got around but...
*I use Mythology in the 'stories and tales told by a religion' It makes my sister twitch when I say 'Christian Mythology.'
It does go back to the old argument though that if you don't actually believe in something then why should you act moral in the first place. having known a few atheists who choose to have morals and a few that do not, the general statement is that following laws and doing the right thing is in their best interest. Yet others, I have met, care only for their best interest not necessarily in the best interest of their fellow man. These people, once again ones I have met personally, also tend to use past issues like the crusades, as issues showing that they feel religion and all religion is very selfish in it motives as well. Not seeming to be able to separate the teachings from an individual who twists it for their own ends. One in particular thought that men in general were dumb and that religions only reason for existence was to give dumb people some foundation with which to focus themselves. He was very confused when he found out that the smartest people working for him were not only all religious but were all Catholic.
Absence of religion does not mean absence of morals. I don't take issues with those who choose to be religious and/or worship a deity. I'm fine with that; most of my friends are like that. Don't do unto others as you don't want done unto oneself is a creed I take to heart.
Besides, has anyone ever found a copy of Darwin's Origin of the Species at a crime scene? :P
We could go on about this for hours. Let me just say that I fond Kant specifically as well as Russell and Hume's arguments slightly flawed. I also think that Aquanis' has a lot to say not just that one singular facets that is repeatedly attacked.
That's where I start wielding Occam's Razor. Slash, slash, and slash. Aha! :P
Not yet, but thank you for the idea :P
Besides, has anyone ever found a copy of Darwin's Origin of the Species at a crime scene? :P
"Your honor, it was planted!"
We have, since the New Deal, spent enough on "the war on poverty" to give every freaking poor person in America Millions of dollars EACH. Poverty still exists. Your way doesn't work. Come up with a better system or zip it.
Depends on what you mean by "works". It is very effective at keeping certain politicians in office which is ultimately the goal of the welfare system. Create a class of voters who rely on your ability to provide for them and they have to vote for you. It's gotten so bad now that there is an entire culture around the welfare system and there are people who know no other way of surviving outside the system.
|
|
Finally, some atheists are smug about it. No question. But they're outweighed tens or hundreds to one by theists who are smug about their inherent superiority for believing the one true faith.Isn't this a simple product of there being more theists than atheists?
In the world as a whole, roughly 18% are atheist/humanist. So a 5 to 1 ratio would be expected. In the UK it's about 25% so 4 to 1. Hundreds to one is overbearing.
Takes tongue out of cheek (although the stats are broadly correct). I may have been exaggerating slightly. And most of it is probably due to there being more theists, as you say. The concentration on the loudest and nuttiest members of religions doesn't help.
"No, it was selected, naturally.""Your honor, it was planted!"Not yet, but thank you for the idea :P
Besides, has anyone ever found a copy of Darwin's Origin of the Species at a crime scene? :P
|
|
We have, since the New Deal, spent enough on "the war on poverty" to give every freaking poor person in America Millions of dollars EACH. Poverty still exists. Your way doesn't work. Come up with a better system or zip it.Depends on what you mean by "works". It is very effective at keeping certain politicians in office which is ultimately the goal of the welfare system. Create a class of voters who rely on your ability to provide for them and they have to vote for you. It's gotten so bad now that there is an entire culture around the welfare system and there are people who know no other way of surviving outside the system.
I covered that in the first paragraph of the rant ;)
You could be an atheist and not believe in material existence at all.
Not quite sure I understand this, if I don't consider supernaturality, or metaphysics, yet could not beleive in material existence( may I'm insane but I dont' see how that in itself is even possible?), what would I be, because the only thing that isn't reality, is unreality, which is metaphysical which I discount as beleif. I'm just trying to understand what your saying because it's giving me a logic feedback headache, through my own misunderstanding I'm sure.
Okay, I'm sure this won't go down well, but I'm going to posit that the dictionary your quoting is in fact incorrect, that is the dictionary definition, but it is a misrepresentation, following from the theist assertion that athiesm is a religion thus invalidating it as a form of thought.
Using the dictionary defintion of athiesm, sure athiesm could be argued to be a beleif system, as good in fact any political or social ideology.
So, yes, I'm clearly trying to redefine athiesm, but just the definition in the dictionary. The current one implies that athiests beleive there is an absence of god, as if there is a hole in the metaphysics of the universe which is empty. This is not true of athiests. There is no hole, there is no god that could fill that hole, nor was there ever, the universe is a measurable expanse of mass and energy. By claiming that I cannot disprove the existence of the magical, you are a) effectively saying that everything that you cannot disprove exists, therefore all beleifs and spiritualisms exist, and b) implying that I think about the question, and actively embrace the absence of magical forces, which is not true.
Science, and natural philosophy is a great basis for my argument in fact, I'm not going to say its not, because the everything is natural, and science is just the attempt to understand that.
The major contention here is that religion and athiesm are fundametally opposed as concepts. If religion is right then athiesm is a religion, of course if athiesm is right, religion is just an idea, a set of images or codes of behavious taught and espoused by men. So ultimately I don't think we're going anywhere here.
If you are religious you have to beleive that athiesm is just another wierd religion. That's fine, honestly you can beleive what you want until you start to posit evidence for natural facts through the medium of magic. And the dictionary is almost certainly going to display the religious view of athiesm, because that is the pervasive, mush simpler and more simply explained view.
At least accept that the vast majority of athiests don't consider athiesm a religion, and are just as offended by the suggestion as religious people are that thier firmly held beleives are as valid as fairies and Santa Claus.
So let's just agree, to disagree shall we, we both agree that money given to chairty should be given to poor people, so with that and many other fundamental ideas we can both happily share the same planet and be civil and kind and agree over a whole host of other areas, which are held as relevant by every human being.
|
|
We could go on about this for hours. Let me just say that I fond Kant specifically as well as Russell and Hume's arguments slightly flawed. I also think that Aquanis' has a lot to say not just that one singular facets that is repeatedly attacked.That's where I start wielding Occam's Razor. Slash, slash, and slash. Aha! :P
Well I have stated this before :P
BS in you get BS out
Occam's Razor works only up to a point then it gives false info because well you just didn't use all the available information at your disposal.
As an aside I have also found that many atheists have about as much religious instruction or understand as most cradle-Catholics do. I am not sure which bothers me more someone who believes because they don't have enough information or someone who does not because they do not have enough information.
Actually I define myself as a Nordic pantheist. Where Catholics wear a cross necklace, I wear one that has Thor's hammer on it. Beyond that though, my big objection is the idea the some how belief and religion are the same and therefore atheism is somehow beyond the realm of belief. It comes across to me as if they consider themselves somehow morally superior to the rest of us because we just have belief and they have something else.
So, presuming you are a Christian, you're saying you're an anislamist? You have an active belief that islam is wrong, correct? Or an azeusist? An athorist? An afairyist? etc etc.
Atheists are prickly on this issue because from long experience when people try to classify atheism as a belief or having any component of faith, they tend to immediately make the leap to atheism=a religion just the same as any other religion, which it isn't. Basically, this has been used as a trap...
My understanding of the term, and what I think others are trying to get across is that Atheism is, in purest sense of word the absence of belief, not an active disbelief. That’s not to say most Atheist don’t hold an active disbelief in god. I would go as far as to say 99.99999% of people who call themselves Atheists do, but a person who has never even heard of the concept of gods and there for doesn’t have an opinion of if he/they exist is also an Atheist.
Finally, some atheists are smug about it. No question. But they're outweighed tens or hundreds to one by theists who are smug about their inherent superiority for believing the one true faith.Isn't this a simple product of there being more theists than atheists?In the world as a whole, roughly 18% are atheist/humanist. So a 5 to 1 ratio would be expected. In the UK it's about 25% so 4 to 1. Hundreds to one is overbearing.
Takes tongue out of cheek (although the stats are broadly correct). I may have been exaggerating slightly. And most of it is probably due to there being more theists, as you say. The concentration on the loudest and nuttiest members of religions doesn't help.
I also wonder how much is environment. Maybe atheists and theists cluster different, and maybe there's other factors that cause nuts to concentrate variously. ;P
The founders knew that a new goverment would need to be put in place once they declared independence from the Crown. Their choices was to choose from one of the many tried models of governtment from around the world that had been devised by man. Try to come up with a government of thier own devise, or turn to Gods word in the Bible. God tells Samuel how he wants his people to govern themselves and the founding fathers followed the model set forth in the scripture. So the basis of conservatism is the original intent of the founders wich was institutions and traditions inspired by Gods teachings directly taken from the Bible
Lest anyone think that silence is acceptance, let me dissent vigorously. Quote Samuel as to the model that this scriptural government is supposed to follow, and then show me how the Constitution in any way resembles that model (except that it allows for a government). Otherwise, I've got a story about how the Framers actually based our government on a collection of Hindu proverbs, or based it on Santa's reindeer.
|
|
I also wonder how much is environment. Maybe atheists and theists cluster different, and maybe there's other factors that cause nuts to concentrate variously. ;PFinally, some atheists are smug about it. No question. But they're outweighed tens or hundreds to one by theists who are smug about their inherent superiority for believing the one true faith.Isn't this a simple product of there being more theists than atheists?In the world as a whole, roughly 18% are atheist/humanist. So a 5 to 1 ratio would be expected. In the UK it's about 25% so 4 to 1. Hundreds to one is overbearing.
Takes tongue out of cheek (although the stats are broadly correct). I may have been exaggerating slightly. And most of it is probably due to there being more theists, as you say. The concentration on the loudest and nuttiest members of religions doesn't help.
[Homer voice]Mmmmm, nut clusters[/Homer voice]
Finally, some atheists are smug about it. No question. But they're outweighed tens or hundreds to one by theists who are smug about their inherent superiority for believing the one true faith.Isn't this a simple product of there being more theists than atheists?
I frankly and wholeheartedly agree.
There are a~&+@!*s in societies dedicated to helping the unfortunate, there are nasty people among those who help the blind for free, so sure there are going to be smug jerks in an intellectual field of ideology and semantics, its an almost unmutable law, however that makes neither all thiests nor all athiests a$*+&++s and smug jerks, in facy from general evidence, it means that even the majority aren't, though you'll see more a*&$%#! representation in arguements over the matter than actually hold to one side of the other.
Thankfully this discussion is free of that, for which I am massively grateful.
excellent response
All. Of. This.